Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 06-12-2014, 02:26 PM

How's this for a revised Number 6?

Quote:Article One - Fundemental Ideals and Principles
1. We, the people of The Coalition of The South Pacific, establish the following as the fundamental and immutable ideals and principles of our republic.
2. Democracy; that we the people, represented by our Assembly, are sovereign in all matters and have the sole right and power to determine our own constitution, laws and officials, that all rights and duties stem from such sovereignty and that we alone have the right to end or alter the compact that is this Charter.
3. Liberty; that all posses the inherent liberty to act, and speak, and think as they do wish so far as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others or impugn upon the safety of the region, in accordance with those rights and restrictions we codify and establish by law.
4. Equality; that all are equal before the law, shall bear equal rights and liberties, and that those officials we elect or appoint are no more than first amongst equals, and for such time only as their office lasts.
5. Tolerance; that all are entitled to the dignity of respect, despite race or sex or faith or creed, that the state shall establish no preference in favour of one or discriminate against another.
6. Openness; this region seeks to remain categorically removed from any prescribed military ideology or alignment, welcoming all citizens and officials with loyalty to the region.

This get's the point across in that the region won't officially take sides, but allows us to welcome individuals with all different leanings.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 02:29 PM

That's a rather absurd rant about something which does no more than reiterate an existing legal commitment to military independence by prohibiting the adoption of an R/D alignment.

Glen, this is an independent region. It was independent when you joined it. Every single time defenders have tried to force the issue the region has rejected the idea of being anything else. We are sick of this stupid, endless argument about military alignment. We want it to go away, we want to stop having to have this fight every single week.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 02:29 PM by Gordon Freeman.)

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 02:41 PM

(06-12-2014, 02:26 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: How's this for a revised Number 6?

Quote:Article One - Fundemental Ideals and Principles
1. We, the people of The Coalition of The South Pacific, establish the following as the fundamental and immutable ideals and principles of our republic.
2. Democracy; that we the people, represented by our Assembly, are sovereign in all matters and have the sole right and power to determine our own constitution, laws and officials, that all rights and duties stem from such sovereignty and that we alone have the right to end or alter the compact that is this Charter.
3. Liberty; that all posses the inherent liberty to act, and speak, and think as they do wish so far as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others or impugn upon the safety of the region, in accordance with those rights and restrictions we codify and establish by law.
4. Equality; that all are equal before the law, shall bear equal rights and liberties, and that those officials we elect or appoint are no more than first amongst equals, and for such time only as their office lasts.
5. Tolerance; that all are entitled to the dignity of respect, despite race or sex or faith or creed, that the state shall establish no preference in favour of one or discriminate against another.
6. Openness; this region seeks to remain categorically removed from any prescribed military ideology or alignment, welcoming all citizens and officials with loyalty to the region.

This get's the point across in that the region won't officially take sides, but allows us to welcome individuals with all different leanings.

That seems a bit pointless, really. It's not going to satisfy anyone who wants to turn this into a defender region, but at the same time it makes clause six slightly confusing. Openness should probably be down as an ideal, but in terms of low barriers to entry in the region. If we're going to reiterate the existing legal posisition that TSP is not part of R/D and instead the military serves the regional interest then calling it anything but independence is silly.

This is one of those debates were trying to appease a small minority is going to be futile, as it's based on a fundamental dispute about the regions identity. They don't want the region to be independent, and generally try to pretend that it isn't, so changing the language wi only satisfy them if we change the content.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2014, 02:45 PM

(06-12-2014, 02:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote: That's a rather absurd rant about something which does no more than reiterate an existing legal commitment to military independence by prohibiting the adoption of an R/D alignment.

Glen, this is an independent region. It was independent when you joined it. Every single time defenders have tried to force the issue the region has rejected the idea of being anything else. We are sick of this stupid, endless argument about military alignment. We want it to go away, we want to stop having to have this fight every single week.

So stop having it. You are the one taking this way over the line, by banning the mere promotion of defending. You are the one telling people they are not allowed to campaign on a defender platform. You are the one effectively taking away this region's freedom of expression, because you don't like it when somebody comes along and argues that TSP should align itself more with defenders.

If we already have a legal commitment for the military to be Independent, why are you putting this forward? If you want to enshrine "TSP First" into law, do that. Don't use the Charter to ban all other ideologies that aren't yours. I'll even offer a change to Tsunamy's proposal:

Quote:6. Openness; this regions seeks to remain open in matters of military and political doctrine, seeking to put The South Pacific first before allegiance to any individual ideal.

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 02:48 PM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 02:48 PM

(06-12-2014, 02:45 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:
(06-12-2014, 02:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote: That's a rather absurd rant about something which does no more than reiterate an existing legal commitment to military independence by prohibiting the adoption of an R/D alignment.

Glen, this is an independent region. It was independent when you joined it. Every single time defenders have tried to force the issue the region has rejected the idea of being anything else. We are sick of this stupid, endless argument about military alignment. We want it to go away, we want to stop having to have this fight every single week.

So stop having it. You are the one taking this way over the line, by banning the mere promotion of defending. You are the one telling people they are not allowed to campaign on a defender platform. You are the one effectively taking away this region's freedom of expression, because you don't like it when somebody comes along and argues that TSP should align itself more with defenders.

If we already have a legal commitment for the military to be Independent, why are you putting this forward?

This amendment does absolutely nothing of the sort. I challenge you to point out where it does such.

As for why, because it being in the Code of Laws hasn't been able to stop every other thread being hijacked for a row on this subject.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2014, 02:51 PM

(06-12-2014, 02:48 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This amendment does absolutely nothing of the sort. I challenge you to point out where it does such.

Clause 6. It's right in there. It's where this proposal tells people, "If you don't consider yourself an Independent, you aren't welcome in this region's government. We don't want you advocating for anything other Independence, either."

(06-12-2014, 02:48 PM)Belschaft Wrote: As for why, because it being in the Code of Laws hasn't been able to stop every other thread being hijacked for a row on this subject.

If TSP is a democracy, then we shouldn't be trying to ban people from advocating their positions just because they might be annoying when they do it.

Again, I reiterate my suggested change:

Quote:6. Openness; this region seeks to remain open in matters of military and political doctrine, seeking to put The South Pacific first before allegiance to any individual ideal.

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 02:51 PM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 02:57 PM

There is a difference between advocating a position and threadjacking to an extent than no alternative discussion can be conducted over the noise.

Your proposed language does the opposite of what clause six is meant to do. The idea is not to be "open" to matters of military doctrine, it's to put and end to this farcical issue by explicitly rejecting R/D.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 06-12-2014, 03:05 PM

Thanks for your proposal Tsu. I think that "loyal to the region" is a bit vague, but otherwise I like it.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

***Tsunamy*** · 06-12-2014, 03:06 PM

My goal was to keep it open in that while this discussion may be brought up again, it cannot be encoded into law.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 03:13 PM

(06-12-2014, 03:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: My goal was to keep it open in that while this discussion may be brought up again, it cannot be encoded into law.

I don't really see the point of avoiding the word independence personally, especially when we already make use of it. We'd be referring to the same thing by two different names - it makes much more sense to use the existing name, which is in common use in NS.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES